Paresh Govindbhai Pithadiya vs Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7797 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Paresh Govindbhai Pithadiya vs Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue ... on 11 November, 2025

                                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/4816/2017                                           ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

                                                                                                                          undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4816 of 2017

                       ==========================================================
                                       PARESH GOVINDBHAI PITHADIYA & ORS.
                                                    Versus
                            SPECIAL SECRETARY (APPEALS) REVENUE DEPARTMENT, & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESENTATIVES for
                       the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
                       ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
                       Respondent(s) No. 1
                       MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
                       NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                                                             Date : 11/11/2025

                                                                 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Vimal A. Purohit for the petitioner, the learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Mr. Premal R. Joshi for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The present Writ Petition impugn the judgment and order dated 30.12.2015, whereby the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department has allowed the suo motu revision application and cancelled the revised non-agricultural use permission from residential to commercial purpose issued in favour of the petitioner.

3. In the present case, the petitioner was granted the revised

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4816/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

non-agricultural use permission from residential to commercial purpose by the order dated 03.08.2009 passed by the respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer, Mundra since the petitioner proposed to put up the construction in the nature of flats and shops on the subject land. That thereafter, the respondent No.3 District Development Officer made a representation to the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department for taking the said order dated 03.08.2009 in revision under Section 211 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code on the ground that there were various violations of law while granting such a permission by the respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department issued the show-cause-notice dated 03.12.2011 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply. That thereafter, the final hearing took place and the parties to the proceedings came to be heard. The written submissions also came to be filed. By the impugned order dated 30.12.2015, the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department allowed the suo motu revision applications holding that the order dated 03.08.2009 passed by the respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer granting the revised non-agricultural use permission from residential to commercial purpose was in violation of various Government Resolutions and the Gujarat Land Revenue Code Rules.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had complied with all the necessary procedures and the rules and in the present case, there is no violation of the same. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order does not consider any of the submissions put-forth on behalf of the petitioner before the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department and no cogent reasons have been assigned while allowing the suo motu

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4816/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

revision applications. The learned counsel submits that general findings have been rendered by the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department while allowing the suo motu revision application. He submits that the petitioner had specifically given the reply to each and every ground raised in the show-cause- notice. He submits that none of the submissions have been adverted to in the impugned order. He submits that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside as there is no violation of any Rule or the Government Resolution. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had raised a specific contention before the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department that the proposal forwarded by the respondent No.3 District Development Officer was misconceived and was based on misreading of the provisions of Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code as well as the the Government Resolution in that regard. He submits that all these contentions have not been dealt with in the impugned order, nor any finding has been rendered thereon.

5. The learned AGP appearing for the respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submit that the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals) has taken into consideration all the documents as well as submissions made on behalf of the parties while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that a specific finding has been rendered that there is violation of Government Resolutions and the Gujarat Land Revenue Code Rules in the present case. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals) has come to the specific conclusion that the grounds, on which the suo motu revision proceedings was initiated, are also duly proved by the authority and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4816/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

the documents placed on record. They, therefore, submit that the order dated 03.08.2009 passed by the respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer granting permission for conversion of non- agricultural from residential to commercial was bad in law and contrary to the Rules and the Government Resolutions in that regard. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals) has observed that all the five grounds, on which the show-cause- notice came to be issued to the petitioner, have been duly proved. They, therefore, submit that no interference is called for in the impugned order and the Special Civil Application be dismissed.

6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the documents and considered the submissions.

7. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 30.12.2015 shows that the reasonings, as recorded by the respondent No.1 Secretary (Appeals), are vague in nature. While recording the five reasons, which are the basis for initiating the revision proceedings against the order dated 03.08.2009 passed by the respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer, it is seen that the learned Secretary (Appeals) has only stated in the impugned order that there is violation of the provisions of Section 65, 65(1) and 65(2) and various Government Resolutions dated 01.07.2008, 08.08.1989, 06.07.1985 and 17.07.1980 and there is no compliance thereof by the respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer while passing the order dated 03.08.2009. It is further observed that necessary procedures have also not been followed in the present case and therefore, the learned Secretary (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that the order dated 03.08.2009 passed by the respondent No.3 Taluka Development Officer is bad in law and contrary to the Gujarat Land

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4816/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

Revenue Code and the Rules. While rendering such finding, no specific reasons have been assigned for coming to such conclusion. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the learned Secretary (Appeals) has issued the show cause notice on five issues, it was imperative to deal with each issue and record a finding in respect of violation. Further, while recording that the submissions of the parties have been taken into consideration, the said contentions are also not dealt with specifically while rejecting the same by the impugned order. In fact, the impugned order is de-hors any valid reason or finding. The learned Secretary (Appeals) ought to have dealt with all the issues so raised in the show cause notice specifically and by giving specific reasoning in respect of those issues.

8. Further, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner had also submitted before the learned Secretary (Appeals) that the show-cause-notice has been issued on misreading and misconstruction of the provisions of Sections 65, 65(1) and 65A and the submissions were also made, the impugned order does not deal with the same. This Court finds that the impugned order is sans any cogent reasons and findings on the grounds on which the show-cause-notice has been issued to the petitioner herein.

9. In view of the aforesaid observations and reasons, the impugned order dated 30.12.2015 is quashed and set aside and Suo Motu Revision Application No.8 of 2011 is remanded back to the learned Secretary (Appeals) for fresh consideration on merits. The learned Secretary (Appeals) shall deal with all the submissions and the contentions so raised by the parties and give cogent reasons in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4816/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

respect of the findings for each of the grounds as enumerated in the show-cause-notice dated 03.12.2011. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and no opinion is expressed thereon. Since the suo motu revision application is of the year 2011, the learned Secretary (Appeals) is directed to conclude the remand proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order after giving due notice to the parties.

10. The Special Civil Application is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent and disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Direct service is permitted.

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) AMIT ITALIAN